In the run up to tonight’s UUC meeting, Alex Kane says (reprinted here) that the much talked about defining moment has to be the emergence of a single leader for the party, and that all other matters under discussion pale in comparison.
By Alex. Kane
It is not a pretty sight. The cellotape and sticking plasters have yellowed and peeled. The wounds are exposed. The members are turning on themselves, publicly in Upper Bann and Lagan Valley, and more discreetly, if no less viciously, in other constituencies. The Ulster Unionist Party has abandoned the broad church approach, and become, instead, a brutal knockout karaoke.
Monday�s showdown between David Trimble and Jeffrey Donaldson may lack epic or heroic dimensions, but one thing is now clear; nothing will ever be the same for the UUP. There is a gulf of Grand Canyon proportions between the two men, their two policy strategies and the two sets of delegates who support them. Unionism has not been well served by the congenital confusion which envelops the UUP�s existing strategy; and nor would it be well served by a last minute and desperate attempt to concoct an internal unity which would have all of the public credibility of a wedding vow from Zsa Zsa Gabor.
It needs to remembered, too, and not least by Mr. Donaldson, that the Ulster Unionist Council is not an island; it does not make decisions in isolation. What happens on Monday evening will impact upon the lives of everyone in Northern Ireland, possibly ending the prospect of devolution for a generation. This is not a popularity contest the delegates will be attending, but rather, an opportunity to fashion and direct the political future of Northern Ireland. The delegates must ask themselves if Jeffrey has a better game-plan and a viable alternative to that on offer from Mr. Trimble.
And, irrespective of what Mr. Donaldson may say, the meeting is about personalities, and it is about the leadership of the party. By attacking the negotiating abilities of Reg Empey and Michael McGimpsey, he is attacking the people themselves. By forcing a vote, he is forcing delegates to take sides, sides which are championed by himself and David Trimble. Jeffrey does a great disservice to the delegates he has summoned, by refusing to admit that the one and only purpose of the meeting is to hobble and topple David Trimble. Again, the delegates must ask themselves if Jeffrey has demonstrated the qualities required of a would-be leader.
The Joint Declaration is riddled with faults and wood-wormed with inconsistencies. I have problems with the section on sanctions, not least because there is no information about how long the process takes, what happens to the accused party in the interim, and whether or not it will have a right of appeal to a national or international court. But I think the antis have over-egged their pudding concerning the involvement of the Irish Government on the Independent Monitoring Body, for it is quite clear that Dublin will not have a say in the legislative or governing processes of the Assembly. But hey, why let the facts stand in the way of some anti-Trimble scare mongering?
Jeffrey also seems to have ignored the fact that Mr. Trimble and his leadership team have not endorsed the Joint Declaration. He has forced a showdown—foolishly and mischievously to my mind—on an issue over which the UUP has no control. Not one dot, jot or tittle of that Declaration will be altered by a Donaldson victory. Instead, incalculable damage will be done to the existing process. In those circumstances, how many delegates really believe that Mr. Donaldson would be able to pick up the pieces, engage the other main players, apply the necessary pressure, renegotiate and deliver a genuine alternative?
There is another matter which needs to be addressed. While it may not be true of Jeffrey himself, there are many people within his camp—maybe even a majority—who do not want a power-sharing administration. These people do not want Sinn Fein in government, even if the IRA has disarmed and stood down. Put bluntly, there are no circumstances under which these people will endorse any strategy which puts Martin McGuinness back in office. And, Jeffrey, if you don�t believe me, then why don�t you put that question to the delegates you claim to represent?
So, what should Mr. Trimble and the UUC delegates do, when forced to an unnecessary meeting of the party�s supreme governing body? They could begin by finally learning from past experience. This will be their tenth meeting in five years, and at each of the other nine, a majority of the delegates has supported Mr. Trimble. Those victories have not stopped Mr. Donaldson and his supporters from continuing to ignore and undermine the Council. On this occasion, when Mr. Trimble will again carry the day, he and his supporters must ensure that the will of the Council prevails.
From Mr. Trimble himself, there must be a speech, and an exercise of leadership muscle, which demonstrates that he, and he alone, is party leader. He must leave his internal opponents in no doubt, that, when they lose on Monday, he expects (and will enforce) either their silence or their exit. And he must leave the wider pro-Union electorate in no doubt that the risks and compromises of the past five years have been, and will remain, worth it. That is why it is a defining moment for him, personally.
While Michael McGimpsey was right to point out that �no member is bigger than the party,� he could have gone further, and added that the party is not big enough to contain two members who claim to be the rightful leader. It is the leadership issue which needs to be resolved on Monday evening. That is why it will be a defining moment for Ulster Unionism.
First published in the Newsletter on Saturday, 14th June
Mick is founding editor of Slugger. He has written papers on the impacts of the Internet on politics and the wider media and is a regular guest and speaking events across Ireland, the UK and Europe. Twitter: @MickFealty
Discover more from Slugger O'Toole
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
