Alex Kane, with an accute reckioning of the chances of a positive outcome to the review talks in the Autumn, and of getting that fair deal that will finally clinch a peaceful settlement to Northern Ireland angst-ridden grievances.
So, does the Prime Minister really mean it? Is it all over for the peace process if the parties fail to cut a deal in September? According to Mr. Blair, addressing the monthly meeting of the Press in Downing Street, “…the alternative is always grim should a settlement not be reached”.
Actually there is nothing new in this line of thinking. Barely a month ago, the Secretary of State told the House of Commons that, “It’s time to conclude or find another way forward. We can’t go on forever like this”. David Trimble responded, “It’s time to make it clear…that the Government will move on, that it will close down the Assembly, that it will put in place alternative arrangements.”
When it comes to Northern Ireland, and inter-party negotiations, governments like to impose deadlines. It doesn’t actually mean that the process will break down if the deadline passes, but it does put some pressure on the parties to be seen to be making a genuine effort to move things forward. Mr. Blair probably believes that the DUP and Sinn Fein would prefer to wait until after the next General and local government elections before they make any decisive moves—meaning that the Talks process could rattle along until well into the autumn of 2005 before anything happens.
In this case I think that his analysis is wrong. I think that both the DUP and Sinn Fein want to do the deal before the next elections, because the longer they put it off the more likely it is that the electorate will conclude that a deal isn’t possible. In those circumstances it becomes harder to convince their voters to turn out—as both the UUP and SDLP have discovered to their cost.
Some commentators have expressed the view that both the DUP and Sinn Fein are engaged in a massive game of bluff, and that neither is really serious about a deal. Others take the view, that, even if the parties aren’t bluffing, the residual hostility between them will make it impossible to produce the concessions that any new settlement requires.
There are three reasons why I think that the two main parties would prefer their own deal, rather than a Downing Street alternative. From the DUP’s position, a devolved government affords them the best opportunity to maximise their dominance over the UUP. Having spent five years insisting that they have an alternative to the Belfast Agreement in its present form, they have to prove that they can deliver it. And, most important, they know that long term Direct Rule is bad for the Union and Unionism.
Peter Robinson may claim that, “no deal is better than a bad deal”, but he also knows that for so long as MLAs, and some family members, continue to receive salaries and office costs, the general public will eventually conclude that they aren’t having to make any real choice between sticking to their principles and sticking their noses in the collective trough. In other words, they can, quite literally, “afford” to put off the decision making.
In Sinn Fein’s case it is vital, if only from a south of the border perspective, that they have an opportunity to demonstrate their electoral and democratic credentials. Also, making a deal, and making it work, makes it harder for the SDLP to recover. And, of course, Direct Rule is seen by their voters as a continuing manifestation of “British Rule”, rather than, as promised, a greater input for Republicans into their own affairs.
In my opinion, therefore – and I know it is an optimistic one – both the DUP and Sinn Fein are “up” for a deal, sooner rather than later. There are still huge hurdles along the way; but history indicates that settlements are often reached by the most unlikely of bedfellows. When it comes down to the make or break issues, I have no doubt that both the DUP and Sinn Fein will assist each other in the process of making rather then breaking.
First published in the Newsletter on Saturday 24th July 2004
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.
