Friday, August 29, 2008
Update on Robinson upping the ante
It’s wonderful how a little detail can scale down a story as a day develops...UTV and The BBC’s Mark Devenport report that changes to the “massive” strategy development document Conor Murphy failed to bring back to the Executive for clearance amounted to around “150 changes, many involve references to “Northern Ireland” being changed to “the north".” Are you being serious, First Minister? The air is going out of this story’s balloon. Sinn Fein ministers may well have a case to answer on possible breaches of the ministerial code by stalling on the prescribed fortnightly Executive meetings and much else, like the failure of Martin McGuinness to clear 30 papers for discussion by the Executive. ( see my comments in the earlier thread). But this is a paltry example on which to base such a challenge. I should’ve held my fire. We nervously wait with bated breath to hear what Mr Robinson had to say to the invited press at 5 pm in advance (strangely) of his meeting with the IMC. I’d rather know what there’s to say after the meeting. After all, we want the news fresh at tea time. What’s happened to your news management skills, Peter?
Brian Walker @ 02:52 PM
Does this mean he doesn’t really really want an immediate executive meeting after all?
Posted by on Aug 29, 2008 @ 03:15 PMBrian
As Mark Devenport points out elsewhere - “In one sense, I suppose this could be construed as fundamental..”
And it could. Given that changing the text of a document after receiving Executive approval for it is technically a breach of [if not contempt for] collective responsibility. Not to mention, in this case, an insult to the other ministers.
Even if, as Mark also points out - “On the other hand, I can see why Naomi Long calls it breathtaking “pettiness"."
By both sides, I’d add.
Btw, didn’t you see my update? ;o)
Posted by on Aug 29, 2008 @ 03:16 PMJust out of interest why did it take Peter Robinson so long to bring this up?
Did Jim Allister not expose this a while back? Not saying I dont support Robinsons stance, just wondering.....
Posted by on Aug 29, 2008 @ 03:27 PMTo be fair Pete does have a point in terms of border regional development especially, how the hell is anyone, in a legal sense, supposed to develop something somewhere whenever the region is determined as the ‘north’ it is clearly a blurred concept. As is calling the Republic the ‘South’, it is not correct at official level.
For example, there was some good cross-border work going on in the health sector regarding lack of access to health services along the border. If you start talking about the North well fuck knows where you identify anything, extrapolate that out to regional development and you may as well play pin the tail on the donkey.
Especially in a strict legal sense in terms of any argument of misplaced / biased funding challenge.
Posted by on Aug 29, 2008 @ 04:12 PMBesides, ‘the north’ is a form of embattled cemetery langauge clearly party-political, where’s your S75 on that one at official level.
On the Shinners website yes sure go for it!
Posted by on Aug 29, 2008 @ 04:22 PMIt’s official - Peter Robinson is a tit.
Posted by on Aug 29, 2008 @ 04:38 PM“It’s official - Peter Robinson is a tit.”
The reasoned response of the Alliance Party…
Posted by on Aug 29, 2008 @ 04:45 PMPerhaps the First Minister misinterpreted the complaint of his dear wife and colleague when, standing in front of the mirror, she declaimed, “God, Peter, I fear everything is going south”.
The First Minister may be forgiven. With this, in political terms at least, it surely is.
Posted by on Aug 29, 2008 @ 05:15 PMModesty forbids the naming of the poster of this statement below on another version of this thread at 11.15 this morning.
“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 @ 05:29 PM... said with your usual eloquence, Sammy!
Posted by on Aug 29, 2008 @ 05:33 PMI do so love a nice bit of “evelation” (I think).
Posted by on Aug 29, 2008 @ 06:34 PMWhilst there is a degree of pettiness and political posturing about the use of the North, and similar usage in official documents and policy documents by other SF Ministers, a demand by these Ministers that all civil servants in their departments use the term is surely an imposition of a political opinion too far. This would have been a point worth bringing out by the First Minister.
Posted by on Aug 29, 2008 @ 09:12 PMI just boked up a beer while reading this. What a bloody waste of good stuff. A comedy of errors indeed.
Posted by on Aug 29, 2008 @ 09:16 PMThe reasoned response of the Alliance Party…
Unreasoned actions deserve unreasoned reactions.
Can you actually give a reasoned response to this stupidity.
Posted by on Aug 29, 2008 @ 09:51 PMWhile Conor Murphy talks about ‘the North’, he is actually talking about ‘the South’....the most northly part of ‘the island of Ireland’ is Inishowen, so he is wrong to use the term ‘the North’.
It is further evidence that Sinn Fein / IRA should not be in government in Northern Ireland, when they can’t get the legitimate name of the province correct.
Posted by on Aug 29, 2008 @ 10:17 PMSammy Morse - I don’t agree that in this instance it is Robinson who is being the tit.
The people voted for the GFA and it was endorsed under the name of Northern Ireland, there is no reference to the North in it in relation to Northern Ireland, there was reference to North as in North/South MC.
It is a pejorative and diminishing term at official level and also in terms of the marketability of Northern Ireland it doesn’t help with distinctiveness, it is negative term really when used in the NI political context.
I don’t really care if SF use it when it is at party level or within circles even when talking locally it is fair game but when it used in official documents in a relational setting as per spends from Northern Ireland and the Republic on mutual co-operation for example it must when used pose a few legal problems.
It is time to get real here, sadly for those who expected anything otherwise. I agree with Pete Baker, unusually, that it pretty damn petty - full sweep across SF-DUP.
And there has been alot of talk of things being a ‘constitutional nonsense’, as Alliance is a party of law and order, etc, surely you must recognise this as not just a DUP nonsense but also at a regional level - a constitutional nonsense?
Posted by on Aug 29, 2008 @ 10:29 PM“I don’t really care if SF use it when it is at party level or within circles even when talking locally it is fair game but when it used in official documents in a relational setting as per spends from Northern Ireland and the Republic on mutual co-operation for example it must when used pose a few legal problems.”
Indeed, DC.
Too many comments here based purely on party political arguments.
And not enough on the procedural process involved.
How else can a mandatory coalition, with collective responsibility, hope to operate effectively unless what is agreed at an Executive level is what is actually published?
Posted by on Aug 29, 2008 @ 10:40 PMRobbo may well have a point as articulated by DC and my pal Pete - that is not really the issue on this thread - it is his backfired attempt to elevate ( as opposed to the evelate: thanks Rory) it into a crisis. This indeed makes him seem like a ‘tit’ and serves to undermine his point.
Given the political difficulties attendant to the negotiations he is in at the moment this adds to the impression that he is a man under some pressure.
Posted by on Aug 29, 2008 @ 10:59 PM“Robbo may well have a point as articulated by DC and my pal Pete - that is not really the issue on this thread..”
Actually, Sammy Mc, it’s the fundamental issue under discussion.
But I’m gladdened to see you agree that he does actually have a point.
Posted by on Aug 29, 2008 @ 11:05 PMPete,
actually its not the main point offered for discussion (see above or below)- its the fact the Robbo has shown poor judgement.
“Are you being serious, First Minister? The air is going out of this story’s balloon. Sinn Fein ministers may well have a case to answer on possible breaches of the ministerial code by stalling on the prescribed fortnightly Executive meetings and much else, like the failure of Martin McGuinness to clear 30 papers for discussion by the Executive. ( see my comments in the earlier thread). But this is a paltry example on which to base such a challenge. “
Posted by on Aug 29, 2008 @ 11:13 PM“actually its not the main point offered for discussion “
Try to quote me accurately, Sammy Mc.
I know it’s difficult for you.
“Actually, Sammy Mc, it’s the fundamental issue under discussion.”
Posted by on Aug 29, 2008 @ 11:17 PMAdds.
But that would require you to pay attention to the detail.
Posted by on Aug 29, 2008 @ 11:19 PMI wasnt quoting you - I was explainig to you that you and DC had wandered off from the main point offered by the thread - my initial comment was “that is not really the issue on this thread”.
Posted by on Aug 29, 2008 @ 11:24 PMPerhaps all this excitement will distract attention from the troubled ’Murphy-Robinson‘ Rathlin Ferry contract.
Just take a look at this:
Reduced Requirements
7. The [DRD] Committee noted the reduced requirements of some £0.7m Capital Grant arising from a saving made when awarding the new contract to operate the ferry service to Rathlin Island.
Wonderful news you might think until you note that there was to be no, er, capital spending as described in the tender documents. The subsidy is provided towards the running costs of operating the ‘life-line’ service only.
DRD is presently carrying out three ‘in-house’ investigations and the Northern Ireland Audit Office (NIAO) has sought contributions from anyone who can shed any light on the matter [my summary].
I understand the St Sorney, the passenger-only ferry, has previously been examined by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA); today, I’m told, an MCA safety officer was accompanied by one of his RoI counterparts.
emara News is alleging that the Scottish government ‘has instructed the company [Calmac] not to proceed with complaints about the validity of the tendering process’. Perhaps the NIAO can ‘facilitate’ full co-operation from all parties to the process.
Posted by on Aug 29, 2008 @ 11:35 PM“my initial comment was “that is not really the issue on this thread”.”
And, Sammy Mc, I reminded you that the fundamental issue under discusssion is actually -
“How else can a mandatory coalition, with collective responsibility, hope to operate effectively unless what is agreed at an Executive level is what is actually published?”
Your problem with that is what?
Posted by on Aug 29, 2008 @ 11:37 PM
