Murphy: is plan B new legislation?

After getting a look at Paul Murphy’s intended speech from last night, it looks like plan B may be simply to enact legislation that may not be agreed to by one or other of the two contending parties. Sinn Fein is not happy. However such a hopping movement has been a theme of the process so far (think IMC). It’s an not entirely left field proposal.

  • George

    Considering Ireland’s elected representatives voted for Home Rule by a clear majority as early as the 1870’s but nearly 50 years later were still being fobbed off by the British establishment, I don’t know why anyone thinks that the GFA will be implemented a mere six years later.

    If the British government and state truly believed in the ideals of the GFA they would have implemented them voluntarily sometime between 1921 and 1998.

    Fob away Mr. Murphy, fob away. Northern Ireland needs your ingenious plan, namely to blame both sides and take credit for progress yourself and your government.

    Has the nice side-effect of confirming in the eyes of many British people that it’s actually the locals who are the problem.

    I can almost hear them now:
    If it wasn’t for those uppity Irish and, what’s worse, those uppity Irish who have the temerity to think their British, that place would be paradise.

  • Keith M

    About bloody time. The government has pandered to parties willing to talk themselves to a standstill for long enough. It’s a shame it took so long to agree that the Belfast Agreement was not the only show in town.

  • Butterknife

    But it was the only show in town at the time, and as it was always going to be reviewed you cannot say that this attempt at accountablity and Stormont rule with our MLAs discussing bread and butter issues wasn’t worth it: for ‘jaw-jaw’ is better than ‘war-war’. Or is this old-fashioned?

  • Pat Mc Larnon

    “It’s a shame it took so long to agree that the Belfast Agreement was not the only show in town.”

    But it is and it remains so. The GFA is not being rescinded or re-negotiated. This relates to the procedures on accountability. The DUP and Alliance want them changed and it is opposed by SF and primarily the SDLP.

    This appears to be the fig leaf for the DUP that commentators have speculated on. But make no mistake, it is all within the confines of the GFA. Looks like the DUPers will have a lot of explaining to do in the backwoods if they go down this road.

  • Keith M

    Pat please give us some credit. The Agreement died the day the first brick fell out of bridge and the terrorists were allowed to remain without sanction despite missed the dealine for decommissioning. The Treaty of Rome has never been rescinded, but we all know that it is now of historic interest only.

    The B.A. was very explicit on how the Assembly should have worked, therefore any change to that is therefore a re-negotiation.

  • Butterknife

    The Treaty of Rome aka the EC Treaty is as relevant now as it has ever been. Successive Treaties have of course modified it but until the EU Constitution is passed it is the foundation of the EU.

    The Belfast Agreement is the foundation stone of power-sharing/partnership in Northern Ireland for the 21st century one of its prime elements was that of review. The DUP are not getting a fair deal they are getting the GFA # 2.

  • smcgiff

    ‘The B.A. was very explicit on how the Assembly should have worked, therefore any change to that is therefore a re-negotiation.’

    Why do I get the impression that this sentence is produced primarily as a point scoring exercise? Whether it’s factual is another story.

  • AndrewD

    This Plan B thing would not suprise me.

    I just hope decommissioning is sorted out. However I don’t trust the Labour Government with their previous record on demanding decommissioning. They say one thing but don’t do the necessary business.

  • Davros

    accepting post-dated cheques is risky, but to carry on accepting them after several have bounced is irresponsible.

  • Pat Mc Larnon

    Keith,
    the DUP promised to supplant the GFA with a new agreement. While there may be some tinkering to accountability (although we are not sure even this will happen) the GFA still stands. SF will still be in there with 4 ministries instead of the previous 2. The DUP will be sitting around the ministerial table this time. The DUP will have to sit on committees (again) along with SF chair persons. Strands 1,2 and 3 will have to be operated.

    I’m all for giving the DUP a bit over cover in order to facilitate their climb down. Every other party has had to do it, noe it is their turn for a bit of humility. But for you to state that the Agreement has died is quite nonsensical.

    The unionist electorate will have to ask the DUPers is this the end product of their campaign to smash Sinn Fein.

  • Belfast Gonzo

    “The B.A. was very explicit on how the Assembly should have worked, therefore any change to that is therefore a re-negotiation.”

    No way. Unionists often decried the fact that the GFA was a example of constructive ambiguity, which it was. Neither was it as specific as you insinuate about procedures as you say; there was a fair bit of scope.

    You cannot now argue the opposite of what unionists have been saying for ages. Sorry.

  • Butterknife

    The Belfast Agreement meant and promised different things to different people. It was meant to be ambiguous as it was a compromise solution, but it did work. Look at the streets of Belfast today, go down the Falls Road and ask Mr Joe if he now supports the armed struggle etc.

    Talk to Cllr Robinson MP, MLA he has since said that the Belfast Agreement