Tuesday, May 15, 2007
The real enemy of the DUP
Henry Patterson in this weeks Sunday Life, with an interesting analysis of the DUP, their recent u-turns and their real motivation.
But Paisley’s real enemy throughout his almost 60 year political career has not been nationalism, republicanism or the IRA but the Ulster Unionist Party. His present acceptance of the structures of the 1998 Agreement, which he so bitterly denounced, is clear evidence of this. Being top dog of unionism was what it was all about whatever the long-term implications for the Union.
The large group of Shinners who were celebrating in Stormont post-ceremony were unlikely to be doing so because they believed that they had seen the end of ‘push-over Unionism’.
Michael Shilliday @ 02:56 PM
I read this on Sunday and was disappointed. Was the analysis dumbed down for the Sunday Life readership? It isn’t particualrly interesting or new.
It has two core flaws;
1. The inability to overcome predetermined stereotypical assessments of Paisley, the DUP and their core support leads to a reliance on sour grapes.
2. The inability to admit there were significant flaws/ommissions in the Belfast Agreement that had to be dealt with.Posted by on May 15, 2007 @ 03:20 PMYour analysis ignores that Paisley has totally accepted the structures of the Agreement, as well as the fact that the DUP have solved next to none of the problems that existed, they simply added to them.
Posted by on May 15, 2007 @ 03:32 PMPlease “define structures of the Agreement”
Posted by on May 15, 2007 @ 03:37 PMAd nauseum? Semantics wont do it, the DUP have signed up to the agreement, that is what the facts bare out.
Posted by on May 15, 2007 @ 03:42 PMPaisley believed that he would be betrayed by the unionist middleclass just as he considers that O’Neill & the Anglo-Irish gentry had previously betrayed Ulster unionism.
He went into powersharing because he believed there was no alternative to trusting in his own community to find the best way forward for themselves. He is right in all those beliefs, which are of course very close to those of Sinn Fein.
Unionism, founded on a dependency culture as it is, has no future. It will be interesting to see what alternative vision evolves.
Posted by on May 15, 2007 @ 03:56 PMIf you don’t want to debate fine but don’t start one then take umbrage at a simple question.
As you won’t answer the question here is an answer.
1. The DUP outlined a series of changes they wanted to the Agreement in their 2003 Assembly manifesto and got the electorate’s endorsement for that. Of the list of things they wanted they deemed they got enough in St Andrews. These changes required legislation in Parliament. So it wasn’t the 1998 structures.
2. The amount of difference between the 1998 and 2007 structures is like a debate about beauty, it is all in the eye of the beholder and invariably ends up as your second post did with a pantomime response of oh yes it is.
3. Whether these changes are for good or ill the implementation of them will tell.The DUP made and seem to have sold a deal. The UUP didn’t. The UUP can metaphorically jump up and down throw dummies out of prams etc about the unfairness of these present poltical realties but it is a waste of energy and I cannot see how it assists the growth of the UUP.
Posted by on May 15, 2007 @ 04:04 PMThat is nonsence. Is the Assembly a continuation of the 1998 one? Is the Executive? The North-Southery? The dressed up petition of concern? The corss community “veto”?
It is all the same with some window dressing that the DUP claim creates a new departure.
Posted by on May 15, 2007 @ 04:09 PMMS
As I said
“2. The amount of difference between the 1998 and 2007 structures is like a debate about beauty, it is all in the eye of the beholder and invariably ends up as your second post did with a pantomime response of oh yes it is.”My apologies for having the temerity to hold a different opinion to HP and your good self.
Posted by on May 15, 2007 @ 04:52 PMSo you claim that the changes are “all in the eye of the beholder”, yet are also antirely different from the 1998 ones? That doesn’t make sense.
Posted by on May 15, 2007 @ 04:56 PMI am afraid your confusion appears to be stem from something I didn’t say. I never said the 2007 and 1998 strcutures were “antirely different”.
I said there were legislative changes to the 1998 structures. Therefore the 1998 structures weren’t “totally accepted”. The “amount of difference” between those is in the “eye of the beholder” - some will consider them substantive others will not (usually depending on their poltical allegiance). You consider them to be insignificant or detrimental, the likes of aughavey considers them substantial.
From the direction of this conversation I have a naggin suspicion if you’d answered my earlier question civilly we would have a number of points of agreement.
Posted by on May 15, 2007 @ 05:30 PMBut they’re not substancial. The only thing that was changed to any extent was the method of selecting the Fm and DFM, which is now dangerous.
I did answer your question civilly, I was just not prepared to answer what could almost have been a rhetorical question. The structures have been accepted, which is what Henry said.
Posted by on May 15, 2007 @ 05:59 PMClaiming a question was “ad nauseam” and “semantics” reiterating your original comment and refusing to answer the question is not generally considered a civil response to a civil question.
Posted by on May 15, 2007 @ 06:07 PMActually I was asking if you wanted me to recite the structures of the agreement ad nauseum. It would be semantic to suggest that the minimal changes to the structures constituted new structures.
Posted by on May 15, 2007 @ 06:21 PMIt strikes me that Paisley takes a longer view of Irish history than most modern-day Unionists. I suspect he never bought the ‘British as Finchley’ line, but rather, has always been interested in a Protestant redoubt in Ireland.
He now knows he will die with Protestants secure in Ireland, and with the Catholic church in seemingly terminal decline throughout Ireland, he is relaxed enough about the middle term.History may be kind to him, in securing solid space for Protestant values in Ireland, instead of barking up the alternative tree - the shrinking iceberg of UK integrationism (apologies for horribly mixed metaphors).
It might end up as a united Ireland Jim, but not as you’d know it.
Posted by on May 15, 2007 @ 06:29 PMThank you for clarifying the non-answer. However, it remains a non-answer. You used a particular phraseology that I simply asked you to explain.
I have learnt to avoid assumptions on slugger hence my caution in putting my interpretation on what you meant and asking for your definition.
There also seems to be an underlying assumption in your comments that you seem to consider me a big fan of all this. I would remind you I wrote at length of my issues with St Andrews.
My criticisms of the article was not motivated out of a love for all this but disappointment at the poverty of the analysis. Lots of commentators have had a difficulty with understanding what and why Paisley and the DUP did what they did and how come the Unionist community voted for it. It was against the stereotype but rather than addressing their previous assumptions they simply go for a bashing exercise. Plus an underlying implication that ‘political nirvana’ was achieved in 1998 (or 1974) etc etc. It wasn’t.
However, all of this is a pre-election argument not a post election one. (The people have spoken, the bastards) ;-) It could still have been employed if the UUP had chosen opposition, but that boat has sailed.
Posted by on May 15, 2007 @ 06:55 PMHenry Patterson’s analysis is spot on. Paisley is the ‘ethnic entrepreneur’ to beat them all.
The so called ‘conflict’ has been prolonged and shaped by the multiple ‘intra communal’ conflicts and competitions for hegemoncy, control and control within Unionism (and to some extent within nationalism/republicanism).
Whatever the stated ‘principles’ and ‘objections’ of Paisley over the years, these were, for the most part, shaped and constructed in order to gain ground in a cynical manipulation of voters for narrow political objectives.
One might argue that we should expect nothing more. However, in a conflict where lives are being destroyed, even party politicians have exceptional responsibilities.
Posted by on May 15, 2007 @ 06:57 PMPaid
I think you’re correct in identifying that there are many different kinds of unionist, and that Paisley is a unionist of an altogether different stripe to, say, David Trimble.
It seems to me that whereas Trimble is an actual unionist (ie the union is sacred, his British identity is total and all points south of the border are genuinely “foreign"), Paisley represents a different tradition. I think Paisley has always seen himself more as a Protestant in hostile Catholic territory. He has often referred to himself as an Irishman - I simply couldn’t imagine Trimble doing that.
It might also explain why, even in the darkest days, many Irish people retained for the cussed oul’ bollix a “sneaking regard” (his own immortal phrase). Because there’s something about him which is familiar, whereas there’s something ineffably alien about Trimble. Because though Paisley is different, he’s also recognisably one of our own, in a way Trimble isn’t.
For Paisley, I suspect, unionism has been and remains a policy, not a principle. The receding of the Catholic Church’s authority in the rest of Ireland is bound to have had an effect on his thinking.
I suspect that whereas accepting a united Ireland would simply be beyond Trimble’s comprehension in all circumstances, a unified Ireland in which Protestants had a secure space of their own (whether that’s in political, social, geographical, cultural, psychological terms, you decide) might be one Paisley could be reconciled with.
Posted by on May 15, 2007 @ 06:58 PMSurprised to see Big Ian portrayed as a left wing, working class, Socialist man of the people in one post.
The Brits, Yanks, Europeans, and Irish involved in the process were always aiming towards a DUP/Sinn Fein finish, the only thing that could possibly work. Big Ian had been pensioned of for the “more moderate forward thinking” Peter Robinson. That’s how The Guardian described him.
However just as republicanism has always been undermined by the split, Unionism/loyalism has always been undone by the “Lundy” taunt. Robinson was not “big” enough to pull it off, so the big man had to be brought back.
Who is going to call Big Ian a Lundy? A couple of deluded Ballymena councillors and a few illiterate moron hoods, but that’s it.
Now that he has accomplished his task, he can retire in about six months.
Posted by on May 15, 2007 @ 07:26 PMAgree with that BP.
Paisley is a child of the bitterness of the Plantation. He’s rooted in Ulster’s disputed fields. Trimble, and most younger Unionists are more British, or UKish perhaps. The Border has had social and cultural effects; everything from accents to outlooks have diverged.
It’s at it’s HW mark now though, I suspect.
Posted by on May 15, 2007 @ 07:44 PM“I suspect that whereas accepting a united Ireland would simply be beyond Trimble’s comprehension in all circumstances, a unified Ireland in which Protestants had a secure space of their own (whether that’s in political, social, geographical, cultural, psychological terms, you decide) might be one Paisley could be reconciled with.”
Cross reference this with the Prospect essay of Mick’s which cited, about Paisley, that:
“(around 1971)...Paisley, uncharacteristically, seemed open to the possibility of new political directions. Cecil King, chairman of the Daily Mirror and one of Paisley’s few friends within the London media, noted how he wavered between wanting to keep the status quo, visualising himself as the next prime minister of Northern Ireland, and even accepting a federal Ireland.”
This is what disgusted me the most about a man who had issued out of his big mouth some tacit comments spiked to incite hate, stoke fear and predict the worst world ever possible to protestants.
Is Michael Shilliday vindicated - sure he is. It is the same old deal only the DUP has pretended that it is something fresh and fair, I mean, come on “Getting It Right” - whats the ‘it’ for? Used because they can’t say GFA1998.
I am no ultra nationalist - either that of UUP/DUP/SF/SDLP but a true Unionist - one belonging to the European Union and including a workable union with Britain and Ireland through new cross-border legislation available to Northern Ireland.
A new Northern Ireland to include British and Irish and other European cultures through integral interlinking constitutional partnerships, with policy served up to the Assembly to be considered by it alone as to whether it should be taken on.
Posted by on May 15, 2007 @ 07:50 PMIn essence the DUP have accepted the foundations of the Belfast Agreement. However fundamental changes have occured and this has been accepted by the Unionist people.
Thats why 36 DUP MLA’s were returned compared with 16 (or was it 17!?) UUP MLA’s. Also Bob McCartneys’ anti-Paisleyites failed in their campaign; hence why Paisley did the deal so quickly.
The Belfast Agreement was never accepted by the Unionist people in 1998. That is where a referendum is flawed and only added to the spin. Hence that is also why the DUP opted for a straight forward election in March.
Maybe the UUP should move on and fight on the issues that matter to people. After all, do they not support the structures as setup by the ‘St. Andrew’s Agreement’?
What disturbs me is the dishonesty of many within the DUP… however thats politics - something that Northern Ireland isn’t indifferent about.
The underlying element within the DUP is that they are a party of talent. They sold it to the people unlike the UUP.
Its a long road ahead. I remain a sceptic. However I hope devolution benefits our people.
Posted by on May 15, 2007 @ 07:52 PM“The Belfast Agreement was never accepted by the Unionist people in 1998. That is where a referendum is flawed and only added to the spin. Hence that is also why the DUP opted for a straight forward election in March.”
But better stay to the facts about this, the GFA was overwhelmingly endorsed so it goes, but the fact is the DUP having voiced their concerns didn’t make any headway into the issues they raised specifically as going concerns at the time.
They didn’t do anything about Anglo-Irish-Agreement, Good Friday Agreement, walk-outs.
But they are good ethnic wind up merchants...OH IT WAS THE WORST DEAL FOR THE PRODS - ITS THE BITTER END OF THE UNION -DISGRACE!!!
Yeah yeah yeah - sure thing Paisley.
Now - I’m off to visit Sean Kelly, so see if your St Andrew’s Agreement can stop me from doing that and be sure to sit down with ex-terrorists in the NSMC, the DUPs policy was principle and when you lose that you lose integrity.
Posted by on May 15, 2007 @ 08:01 PMGiven that the similarities between the STA and GFA far outweigh the differences and even allowing for Provo disarmament there can be no doubt that Paisley’s denunciation of Trimble for signing up to the GFA now looks completely opportuinist.
On the issue of the 2 agreements - does anybody think that the change to the way Stormont can be dissolved in the STA is a Nationalist gain over the GFA?
Posted by on May 15, 2007 @ 08:34 PMfair deal
“The DUP made and seem to have sold a deal”
and
Observer
“They sold it to the people unlike the UUP”
As the DUP’s Sales skills have been mentioned twice on this thread I have to challenge this myth.
The DUP “sold” nothing.
Firstly they didnt have to fight a viscious unionist rear guard action both within and without like the UUP did.
Secondly by the time they had their deal the Provos had eventually delivered Decommissioning.
Thirdly the majority of the unionist electorate had eventually woken up to the soundness of the original UUP strategy as it eventually delivered 2 above and they saw peace and prosperity all around them - including a 50% increase in their house prices in the last 12 months alone.
Fourthly a huge proportion of the DUP electorate are unable to think independently for themselves (as per Ian Jnr) and if it is good enough for Doctor Paisley then it is good enough for them.
They have been selling a pup for years.
Posted by on May 15, 2007 @ 10:03 PMJohn East Belfast
I agree with you on the substance of your arguement - but not on the ‘sales’ issue - which is old english for ‘spin’.
You have to hand it to the DUP - they did a brilliant spin job - Tony himself would have been proud. Afterall he sold Thatcher’s economic policy as New Labour’s the same way as the DUPers sold Sinn Fein/SDLP/Irish governement policy of the GFA as the Unioinst STA.
Posted by on May 15, 2007 @ 10:12 PM
