Saturday, September 16, 2006
The major cards lie with the DUP
It’s fair to say that even before Hain’s last push began late last year, the DUP were braced for a PR onslaught on their political redoubt. In the event, the IMC reports took several iterations to push the IRA into reasonably clear water, with the last one hinting that it considers criminality to be sufficiently out-of-house not to require such close attention. As a result, the required head of political steam never quite got as far as Dundela Avenue. In the Newsletter today, Alex Kane has been taking some soundings.
By Alex Kane
Addressing the National Committee on American Foreign Policy in New York on April 5, Peter Robinson spoke of his hope of a future in which “the eternal values of liberty and democracy have prevailed and the sons and daughters of the Planter and Gael have found a way to share the land of their birth and live together in peace.”
Addressing the British Irish Association last Saturday, Peter Hain noted that “the Plantation goes to the heart of the insecurities and grievances of both communities in Northern Ireland and touches the core of the constitutional issue for the whole island.” So he, too, wanted a solution that embraced the descendants of the Planter and Gael.
This sort of dialogue is known as the “choreography of the peace process.” Peter R speaks onto Peter H because both Peters know that the Doc has no particular interest in the Planter and Gael doing a deal at the moment. As far as he is concerned it has taken four hundred years to resolve the differences kick-started in 1609, so pushing past the November 24 deadline isn’t going to make much of a difference in the short term.
Mind you, there are some in the DUP who have more mischievous reasons for skipping through the deadline. The closure of the Assembly, and the accompanying loss of salaries, staff, offices, expenses and grants, will hit the UUP much harder than the DUP. From the DUP’s perspective, inflicting further damage on the UUP and curbing its campaigning and constituency activities, would give the DUP more room for manoeuvre in the run-up to a deal.
I can see the immediate and self-interested attraction of such a strategy for the DUP, but I fear that it could result in a mere pyrrhic victory. The days of one party umbrella unionism are gone forever, along with tens of thousands of former voters. We need two strong, effective pro-Union parties; competing to attract and maximise the unionist vote and co-operating to ensure the best possible deal. The DUP cannot carry the load alone.
There are others in the DUP who want to call the weakened Prime Minister’s bluff. They believe that the Good Friday Agreement is the only remaining feather in his legacy cap and they reckon that he won’t risk collapsing it during his last few months in Number 10. In other words, if Blair can be persuaded that the DUP is within a squeak of a deal, then he will keep the show on the road (albeit non-funded) until next Spring. This allows the DUP to seem tough to its hardcore base and also avoids the sort of internal tensions that could follow on from what looked like an enforced and jumping-too-quickly deal with Sinn Fein.
As ever, the key to the whole thing is Ian Paisley. I have written before that I suspect that all of his own personal, political and psychological instincts are opposed to any deal at all involving Sinn Fein. Yet the prospect of finishing off the UUP, along with the promise of a referendum in advance of devolution, could maybe, just maybe, tempt him.
So, the deal could look like this. Push through the November 24 deadline (to hurt the UUP); reactivate the negotiations with Sinn Fein to produce a Comprehensive Agreement Mark 2; put the deal to a referendum (Paisley won’t move without the endorsement of “the people” and a mere consultation exercise won’t convince him); an Assembly election (allowing the DUP to quickly capitalise on a hoped for referendum success); and then four years to allow the whole thing to bed down.
To be honest, the DUP is in a fairly comfortable position at the moment. Tony Blair needs a deal. Peter Hain’s career would be enhanced by a deal. The DUP has to be seen to deliver something fairly soon, but it is under no sustained pressure from either the UUP or any other unionist presence. The only fly in the ointment is Sinn Fein. Oh to be another fly on the wall in that stately home in Scotland!
First published in the Newsletter on Saturday 16th September 2006
Mick Fealty @ 08:59 AM
I liked this piece.
For a long time I have foudn Alex Kane to be “Mr Gloomy”. But this piece is rather good analysis and free from the “we’re doomed” tone he often uses.
Posted by on Sep 16, 2006 @ 09:47 AMI don’t know what the author of this blogs background is but I assume rightly of wrongly he may be from a nationalist / republican background. Again laying blame with someone in this case before it happens, but that is nothing new. Blaming the DUP (before a ball has been kicked) if it goes wrong again. Have you ever wondered what behind scenes demands the main oposition party (in this case Sinn Fein) are making from the DUP to ensure agreement on certain issues being address before forming the Assembly.
Posted by on Sep 16, 2006 @ 11:32 AMSapi: Alex Kane is not to my knowledge from a nationalist/republican background, nor is he nationalist or republican.
Posted by on Sep 16, 2006 @ 11:37 AMI don’t know what the author of this blogs background is but I assume rightly of wrongly
You assume very wrongly. Alex is a senior member of the UUP. I suggest you educate yourself before exposing your ignorance.
The article is up to Alex’s usual high standard. The point about a referendum is interesting. The DUP may be somewhat deluded if they think a referendum provides an escape clause. In practice the DUP will have to align themselves either with the yes or no camp for any given deal. They can hardly campaign for a “no” against a deal that they have put their own hand to; and if there is no resounding endorsement of the deal then they will appear weakened.
Posted by on Sep 16, 2006 @ 11:47 AMIf the Unionists are not going to implement the GFA, then the 2 govts will have to step in and run NI jointly. Otherwise the Republic should restore the constitutional claim on NI, as this claim was only removed as a quid-pro-quo.
Posted by on Sep 16, 2006 @ 12:17 PMI also find the idea of a referendum intriguing. If I were in the DUP it wouldn’t be an avenue that I would be rushing along, dammed unpredictable things. I can think of quite a few who would vote against simply because the DUP support it. Though the novelty of Paisley says YES would be entertaining.
What really brasses me off about this whole debate is that there is an agreement that was endorsed overwhelmingly by the electorate North and South and supported by the two governments. We then had SF pissing around for years for their own audience and advantage, the British Government’s insidious side deals, criminals released, and now the DUP wanting to rewrite the dam thing again for its own audience and advantage.
If I employ someone as an account I don’t expect them start arguments about not doing the books until I have restructured the company. If they did they would soon be looking for a job. We have pampered and pandered this bunch of reprobates and it really is stupid. You reward results not belligerence, you wouldn’t do it with employees and really that is what our politicians are, they are there to represent us, we pay them. Worse than that we allow them to use threats in order to extort concessions, which can be financial and-or political. Pay up or we will throw a tantrum. This is utter anarchy and is a sign not of diplomacy but of weak management. None of them should have received one penny in wages or expenses. Don’t do a job don’t get paid easy and a good starting point.
The agreement should NEVER have been structured to allow minority vetoes but that is another story.
In my opinion no progress until a post Paisley era and if the British are clever the longer Paisley lives the more damage the DUP suffer.
Posted by on Sep 16, 2006 @ 01:52 PM“From the DUP’s perspective, inflicting further damage on the UUP and curbing its campaigning and constituency activities, would give the DUP more room for manoeuvre in the run-up to a deal.
I can see the immediate and self-interested attraction of such a strategy for the DUP, but I fear that it could result in a mere pyrrhic victory”
This is a good point by Alex - anyone in the DUP thinking along these lines should think again as it is not the UUP they will be damaging it will be the Union itself.
The bottom line is there are many tens of thousands of unionists out there who if totally turned off the UUP will simply get bored with the Union itself.
Whether you agree with it or not the only thing to the forefront of Pro Agreement minds was the best strategy to protect the Union.
How that worked out may have pissed people off who disagreed with the strategy - but the motivation was clear to anyone who looked.Lets face it what other reason could there have been ?
I have never seen anything from the DUP that wasnt ultimately about advancing its own electoral success at the expense of the UUP.
This will only and ultimately reduce the overall pro Union vote.The UUP and DUP are political opponents not enemies and talk of killing off your enemies is the wrong way to be thinking in the democratic struggle for the greater number of unionist votes.
Posted by on Sep 16, 2006 @ 02:14 PMOf course the DUP will say no to the November deadline (which will not be moved according to the government) Then both the British/Irish governments will try to implement joint authority without an assembly and therefore without the consent of the people.
The big NO plays to the DUP. The people of northern Ireland want the assembly up and doing what is supposed to be doing, but, not at any price or by threats from the Britsh/Irish governments. The DUP have a Royal Flush.Posted by on Sep 16, 2006 @ 02:24 PMPoor unionists still fantasising that they have a veto! The people have made their deal and won their referendum long ago. The delays in implementing it have stemmed from British and unionist sources with their mysterious vanishing white vans, mythical burgulars in Castlereagh who know all the security codes and a spy plot bigger than Watergate whose only identified member was a British agent!
At least the Brits used their time wisely and destroyed the loyalist networks of sectarian thugs who have always been the real source of unionist power.
With MI5 at the top in the OO, the DUP and everywhere else you care to look their job is almost done. Unionists will do what they are told or be ignored - kings of their squalid little empires in Castlereagh or Ballymena for a few more years but never again trusted with power.
Posted by on Sep 16, 2006 @ 02:27 PMCrataegus ,
‘We have pampered and pandered this bunch of reprobates and it really is stupid. You reward results not belligerence, you wouldn’t do it with employees and really that is what our politicians are, they are there to represent us, we pay them. Worse than that we allow them to use threats in order to extort concessions, which can be financial and-or political. Pay up or we will throw a tantrum. This is utter anarchy and is a sign not of diplomacy but of weak management. None of them should have received one penny in wages or expenses. Don’t do a job don’t get paid easy and a good starting point. ‘
So there is common sense out there after all :)
Well said .
Posted by on Sep 16, 2006 @ 04:50 PMThe Stormont assembly was created as a sop to Unionism so that they might engage in the democratic process. Ironically, Unionism now refuses to participate in the assembly. So let’s get real here. Unionism is a supremacist and sectarian philosophy. Paisleyites (who represent most unionists/loyalists) are constitutionally incapable of sharing power with the leading nationalist party, Sinn Féin. They are imbued with a hatred of all things Irish and unable to comprehend the basic tenets of democracy. They will never share power in the occupied statelet. So let’s ditch the assembly. Meanwhile, it is incumbent on both governments to implement all other aspects of the GFA. If they refuse and occupied Ireland is returned to the ‘back burner’ for another decade or so, we can expect a renewed armed campaign designed to liberate our country. The Irish people in the occupied zone are entitled to equality, justice, the right to continue our quest to vigorously pursue the goal of reunification and freedom from sectarian terrorism perpetrated by Unionist terrorists. The GFA was supported by the vast majority of the Irish nation and it’s implementation is necessary because the alternative will almost certainly be yet another armed rebellion. Those who assume that the IRA are prepared to twiddle its thumbs whilst occupied Ireland continues to be subjected to British direct rule, ad infinitum, are gravely mistaken. The Army’s decision to cease military activities is contingent on the implementation of the GFA, especially the disbandment of SS/RUC, evolving N/S executive institutions and a willingness by unionism to accept that the South has an integral (and evergrowing) role to play in the governance of the occupied area. If the Brits do a U-turn at the behest of their orange cheer leaders, resulting in an indefinite period of Direct Rule from London, then the GFA project will have failed. But does anybody seriously think that Irish republicanism will meekly accept this scenario? If so they are living in cloud cuckoo land. Rather, the Irish nationalist community throughout the island will never again trust the Brits (we never did trust unionists) and the available options will be reduced to one. If this happens Irish Republicanism will have to shelve its electoral ambitions, the leadership will have to accept that their project failed and Britain will pay a very heavy price for reneging on it’s comitments. Their is a need for Irish republicans to accept that a return to armed struggle is becoming more likely. But next time out, it will be necessary to prosecute a war based on the lessons we learned during the most recent phase of armed struggle. We MUST prepare ourselves for this outcome. We MUST brace ourselves for the possibility of a new war designed to remove Britain from the equation and to destroy Unionist terrorists both the ‘legal’ and illegal variety. We MUST not forget that the blame for the failure of the Irish Peace Process will rest firmly on Britain and Orange fascism. We owe it to our patriot dead, our martyrs and those who demand the right to self determine Ireland’s future without colonial interference. Their will/would be negative consequences (obviously) to a renewed struggle for liberation, but we are strong and powerful. We cannot lose. All we ask for is the implementation of the GFA, we are entitled to this. If Britain and descendants of Orange planters prevent this, what else can we do? But this time it will/would be different. A mean, well trained, dedicated force armed with up to date military armaments and politicised, militarily savvy Volunteers would be able to prosecute a ferocious war. Finally, I am not advocating a return to war. I am a pacifist but not a door mat. I am also a realist and if the governments do not implement Joint Authority when Unionism rejects the democratic process, then it will be incumbent on Irish Republicans to unveil our ‘Plan B’, on a scale hitherto unseen in occupied Ireland and Britain. Beirfidh Bua!
Posted by on Sep 16, 2006 @ 04:51 PMDave,
‘The people of northern Ireland want the assembly up and doing what is supposed to be doing,’
Do they ? I would’nt bet on it . It’s done nothing for the last four years or more and the people /economy seem to be doing ok .
‘ The DUP have a Royal Flush. ‘
Looks to me like they’re sitting on a pair of deuces, and the game is moving on without them .
Posted by on Sep 16, 2006 @ 04:56 PM“So, the deal could look like this. Push through the November 24 deadline (to hurt the UUP); reactivate the negotiations with Sinn Fein to produce a Comprehensive Agreement Mark 2; put the deal to a referendum (Paisley won’t move without the endorsement of “the people” and a mere consultation exercise won’t convince him); an Assembly election (allowing the DUP to quickly capitalise on a hoped for referendum success); and then four years to allow the whole thing to bed down.
How long is Mr Paisley going to live?
Posted by on Sep 16, 2006 @ 05:01 PMBrian Boru:
“If the Unionists are not going to implement the GFA, then the 2 govts will have to step in and run NI jointly. Otherwise the Republic should restore the constitutional claim on NI, as this claim was only removed as a quid-pro-quo.”
Fuck the constitutional claim, in the event of the GFA failing (er, like it’s succeeding now?) the murderers who should never have been let loose must return to serve out their sentences. Wasn’t that Mo Mowlam’s staggering quid pro quo deal? At least we could sleep a little easier in our beds.
Posted by on Sep 16, 2006 @ 05:39 PMFanny, those “murderers” you refer to presumably include SS/RUC and other components of the British military force in Ireland. Although most were never incarcerated, as is often the case with State sponsored terrorists, why ignore the plethora of SS/RUC and RIR/UDR murderers and those members who collaborated with their fellow travellers within UFF/UVF? Moreover Fanny, remember that it is Unionists who refuse to recognize the mandate of the Irish nation who overwhelming endorsed the GFA, ain’t got nothing to do with Oglaigh Na hEireann Volunteers or ex POWs. Finally, I actually agree with you on the constitutional claim. It’s just a piece of paper and the fact is that Irish Republicans will never accept the notion that a shower of Orange fascists and Paisleyite bog trotters have a veto over the right of Irish people to self determine our own future, irrespective of what articles 2 or 3 say. But if you are having trouble sleeping in yer bed maybe the Paisleyites in Ballymena can help ya. I hear their Orange Heroin does wonders for insomnia.
Posted by on Sep 16, 2006 @ 06:09 PMMcGrath
How long is Mr Paisley going to live?
I’m resorting to<a > voodoo</a>
Posted by on Sep 16, 2006 @ 06:36 PMciaran damery
Has internet access been introduced as a form of therapy to whatever mental institition in which you reside ?
Posted by on Sep 16, 2006 @ 06:41 PMCiaran, I do mean everyone, all those who’ve murdered and maimed, were (for the most part) lawfully tried and convicted but were released in order to facilitate an agreement that has been shelved for years now. The charmers you mention ought to be tried as well once the GFA is proven defunct.
Funny how no one seems to want to mention these desperadoes. It’s as though they’re the human equivalent of the proverbial can of worms: once freed, never to return. I imagine it would be next to impossible to undo the harm Mowlam et al did, but that’s of little comfort to law-abiding citizens
Posted by on Sep 16, 2006 @ 06:45 PMFanny I think you are too focused on vengeance rather than dealing with the root societal and political causes of the conflict.
Posted by on Sep 16, 2006 @ 07:04 PMJohn from E. Belfast uses that oh so familiar Unionist tactic of tossing insults at his opponents but never engaging in a debate cuz he knows that he would be beaten hands down. Unionists are a wierd sub-species. They delude themselves by (for example) referring to the six occupied counties as “Ulster” and refer to their parades of hate as “cultural”. Meanwhile they physically and emotionally abuse catholic church goers in Harryville, throw their feces at little school girls in North Belfast, protest when Irish catholics comorate their dead at cemetries and choose a complete and utter plonker to lead their cause. Where else in the world would Papa Doc Paisley be a leader? So John, by all means take issue with my post but try to be a tad more insightful and innovative in yer response.
fanny - Oglaigh Na hEireann Volunters were not “lawfully tried and convicted”. They were tried in non-jury courts, by a judiciary which is/was politically alligned to Unionist supremacism and in most cases they were “convicted” because of confessions they purportedly offered an enemy who was found guilty by the International court of Human Rights of torturing Republicans in their custody. So to assume that Irish republicans were “lawfully tried” has as much credence as Iraqi dissidents who were tried by Saddam Hussein. And again, it is not the IRA who are holding up progress, it is Unionism who refuse to recognize SF’s mandate and engage in the process. Incidentally, no IRA Volunters have been reincarcerated for any subsequent ‘offence’. Wish I could say the same about Unionist terrorists.
Posted by on Sep 16, 2006 @ 07:11 PM“Fanny I think you are too focused on vengeance rather than dealing with the root societal and political causes of the conflict.”
Sorry, Brian, just imprisonment is ... vengeance? Since when?
Posted by on Sep 16, 2006 @ 07:16 PMCiaran - stop embarassing yourself please.
Posted by on Sep 16, 2006 @ 07:23 PMCiaran, I’m sure you’re right by your lights in what you believe, but it is historical fact that a great many bombs exploded in NI from the early 70s onward, killing and maiming. I conclude that said bombs did not self-detonate, therefore various individuals were responsible.
Same applies to bullets fired, knives thrust and other assorted weapons brought to bear. Most of the killings done by those weapons were done by terrorists--and yes, many of those terrorists wore uniform.
Many of those terrorists were apprehended, tried and convicted. And yes, it is a matter of record that many of the trials were either morally or ethically unlawful.
Yet the fact remains that murderers and would-be murderers were put where they could do no more harm. In jail. That many are now free in exchange for an agreement that was in effect for a wet afternoon or two is a fact as well.
I frankly don’t give a fuck whose side you’re on. I do give a fuck that murder can be treated so lightly in this place. It’s wrong. And it sends out the wrong signals to developing countries, should we ever wish to show them a good example of how civilization works.
Posted by on Sep 16, 2006 @ 07:34 PM“The big NO plays to the DUP.” “The DUP have a Royal Flush.”
Yeah, right.
The DUP have the power to prevent a local assembly from sitting - that’s it! Blair hasn’t much time left - Labour need to get ready for the UK council elections - they are NOT going to waste any more time on NI. Bertie Ahern also has an election to fight next year so won’t waste any more time on NI.
Do you really think that the UK govt will continue to dance to the DUP veto tune and pump billions into NI to keep it afloat?
If Nov 24th passes (which it will), the 2 govts will move on. The plans are already in place - the legislation on the statute books.
The DUP are more interested in destroying the UUP and Paisley just wants to preserve his legacy of saying No.
The longer he remains leader, the weaker the DUP position will be when they come to make a deal - which they inevitably will have to do.
Posted by on Sep 16, 2006 @ 07:45 PMWell Fanny, referenda North and South legitimised those releases though I do think it’s strange that the 2 govts seem to be implementing them differently. In the South, the govt’s position seems to be that the release-provisions only apply to those convicted before the GFA, whereas in the North, it appears the British govt position is to release all paramilitaries who are keeping to a ceasefire and support the agreement - even those convicted after the GFA. I would go as far as saying these positions should be harmonised to avoid inconsistencies, but stopping them outright would violate a democratically-expressed decision.
Posted by on Sep 16, 2006 @ 08:42 PM
